If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Will the gun control hypocrisy never cease?

So comes now that defender of the poor 'gunned-down' politician...understandable since it's his main squeeze that has had gallons of tears cried over her...no less that a retired American Astronaut and hubby of Gabby Giffords. So guess what?

UB

Dear Guns & Patriots reader,

What are we to make of retired astronaut Mark E. Kelly, husband of former congresswoman Gabby Giffords?

The problem is not just that Kelly advocates for limiting purchases of the semi-automatic military-style long guns, so- called "assault weapons," and purchases of the high-capacity magazines he just picked up at Daimondback Police Supply, Tucson, Ariz., his local gun store.

Apparently, he really is in favor of limits on the purchases of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, he just believes the limits should not apply to him.

What we are really dealing with is Kelly's Burkean failure to stand up for rights he said he enjoys and cherishes for everyone else.

Until his Tucson shopping trip, Kelly got a hall pass from many supporters of gun rights. The tragedy of his wife's injuries, the others wounded, and the six victims killed Jan. 8, 2011, is so heavy a burden, he and his wife could almost be forgiven whatever they said about anything as they struggle to get back to normalcy.

But, what he if he had taken the other road?

What if Kelly had stood up to defend gun rights for the rest of us?

The truth is that Kelly would stop the opponents of gun rights in their tracks. If he had made the point that the best defense against a spree shooter is an armed citizenry, who would argue with him?

When the one you love becomes a memory, that memory becomes a treasure.

Seems that I read something to the effect that it was basically a stunt demonstrating how easy it is to purchase a modern sporting rifle and that he was going to give the gun to the police.

I don't believe that for a minute. He dropped somewhere around $2k, and possibly committed a felony straw purchase to make a point? He also reportedly bought another gun, and therefore passed his NICS background check, so why would he have been denied the "assault rifle"?

Interesting comment from Mark Levin the other night: there would be a precedent for not making gun acquisitions "onerous". The basis would be the same as that which does not permit a "poll tax". If you have a right to vote, the govt does not have the authority to place unreasonable obstacles in the way of you exercising your right. The same would apply, according to Levin, WRT the liability insurance proposal for gun owners; or to taxing the cost of ammunition for guns so that only a rare few could afford the ammunition.

I thought that was an interesting Constitutional perspective on proposed laws that would not directly ban gun ownership, but would make it unreasonably difficult for a citizen to defend themselves.

G.Clinchy@gmail.com"Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.